DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) DISPLACEMENT ...

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) Round VII Report - December 2015

DISPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS  2,151,979 individuals (313,575 households) were identified in Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, Yobe, Nasarawa, Plateau, Kaduna, Kano, Zamfara, states and Abuja through DTM.  In total, around 1,818,469 IDPs captured through the DTM assessments have been displaced by the insurgency (84.50% of the total IDP population).  Majority of the IDPs are identified in Borno (1,434,149; 66.64%) followed by Adamawa (136,010; 6.32%) and Yobe (131,203; 6.1%).

Number of IDPs by LGA

 55.73% of the IDP population are children and 28.13% are 5 years old or younger.

 92.44% of IDPs live in host communities while 7.56% live in camps.

78 Camps and camp-like sites have been identified through the DTM assessments.

94% of the registered IDP population in round VII are willing to return home

IOM NIGERIA http://nigeria.iom.int/dtm

DTM Nigeria Report Round VII ● December 2015

INTRODUCTION The north-eastern part of Nigeria is affected by the Boko Haram insurgency which continue to generate the displacement of people across the borders but also inside the country. In addition to the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) affected by the conflict, IDPs displaced by natural disasters and community clashes have also been identified in the north and central parts of the territory. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) started in 2014 the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) program. The DTM consist in building the capacity of the governmental institutions at national and regional levels to establish a comprehensive system to collect and disseminate data on IDPs. The DTM assessment are currently carried-out in 13 states (Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba and Yobe) by mixed teams composed of representatives of NEMA, SEMA, Nigerian Red Cross Society and IOM. The DTM assessments were conducted from November to December 2015 in a total of 207 LGAs and 1266 wards. This report includes the results of the baseline assessments conducted at Local Government areas (LGAs) and ward level as well as the data gathered through the sites assessments that were carried out in camps and camp-like sites. In addition, the results of the registration exercise conducted for 2,094 IDP households (12,527 individuals) in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno and Gombe are presented in this document. With the exception of Borno, the DTM teams had full or partial access to all LGAs in the states that were assessed. In Borno, 6 LGAs were assessed: Maiduguri, Jere, Biu, Konduga, Kwaya Kusar and Bayo. Depending of the evolution of the security situation and of the resources available, the DTM program is planning to expend its activities to additional locations in Borno. The DTM program is funded by the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is also providing financial support to the program.

1 POPULATION PROFILE 1A: LOCATION OF DISPLACEMENT The total number of IDPs identified in Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba and Yobe states as of the 31st of December 2015 is 2,151,979 IDPs (313,575 households). Borno state (1,434,149 IDPs) has the highest number of IDPs, followed by Adamawa (136,010) and Yobe (131,203). In total, around 1,818,469 IDPs captured through the DTM assessments are considered to be displaced as a consequence of the Boko Haram insurgency. Current Location

IDP Individuals

IDP Households

Average HHs size

ABUJA

13,481

2,288

5,9

ADAMAWA

136,010

18,701

7,3

BAUCHI

70,078

10,804

6,5

BENUE

85,393

11,197

7,6

BORNO

1,434,149

195,656

7,3

GOMBE

25,332

4,666

5,4

KADUNA

36,976

4,870

7,6

KANO

9,331

1,946

4,8

NASARAWA

6,755

37,553

5,6

PLATEAU

77,317

13,422

5,8

TARABA

50,227

9,291

5,4

YOBE

131,203

25,570

5,1

Grand Total

2,151,979

313,575

6,9 1


Round

Months of release

I

December 14

389,281

II

February 15

1,188,018

2,500,000 2,000,000

Number of IDPs

1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000

III

April 15

1,491,706

IV

June 15

1,385,298

2,150,451

Abuja Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Nasarawa,Taraba and Yobe

Graph 1: Number of IDPs-December 2014/December 2015 V

The slight decrease in the number of IDPs from October to December 2015 is due to the fact that in most of the states assessed the number of IDPs is lower than for the previous round of assessment. This can be attributed to the movement of return observed in some locations.

Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe

0 Dec '14 Feb '15 Apr '15 Jun '15 Aug '15 Oct '15 Dec '15

States covered

VI

August 15

October 15

2,239,749

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Abuja Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna,Nasarawa, Plateau,Taraba and Yobe Abuja Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna,Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau,Taraba Yobe and Zamfara.

The demographic profile of the IDP population has been December obtained through a survey conducted in a total of 1266 wards VII 15 2,151,979 using a sample of 20 household in each of the ward assessed. In total, 20,738 households (6.61% of the IDP households) have been interviewed for detailed age and sex breakdown.

After extrapolation, the results of the survey show that 51.8% of the IDP population are female and 48.2 % are male. Children of less than 18 constitute 55.7% of the IDP population and more than half of them are 5 years old or younger. 25.0%

20.0%

15.0% F M

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% less than 1

1‐5

6‐17

18‐59

60+

Graph 2: IDP Population by major age group and sex breakdown;

2


1C: REASONS OF DISPLACEMENT Natural disasters, 2.61% Commun ity clashes, 12.89%

Insurgen cy, 84.50%

The vast majority of the IDPs identified through the DTM assessments have been displaced because of the insurgency (84.5%) while 12.8% have been displaced by communal clashes and 2.6% by natural disasters. The decrease in the percentage of IDP who were displaced by the insurgency (95.3% in August 2015 and 88.6% in October 1 ) and the increase in the number of IDPs displaced by communal clashes (4,6% in August 2015and 10,1% in October2) is due to the inclusion of Benue, Kaduna, Kano and Plateau states in two last rounds of assessments and to the fact that in both states the majority of IDPs have been displaced by communal clashes.

Chart 1: IDP Population by reason of displacement In Borno and Yobe, all the IDPs assessed through the DTM assessments have been displaced by the insurgency. In the states of Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Kano and Gombe the main factor of displacement is also the insurgency whereas in Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau, Kaduna, and Taraba most of the IDPs have been displaced by communal clashes. Community clashes

Insurgency

Natural disasters

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Graph 3: Total IDP Population by current location (State) and reason for displacement; 1D: YEARS OF DISPLACEMENT The majority of IDPs identified during this round assessment were displaced in 2014 (61.5%). The percentage of IDPs displaced in 2015 is of 34.2 %. 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

Before 2012

40.0%

2012/2013

30.0%

3)2014

20.0%

2015

10.0% 0.0% Total

Graph 4: IDP population by year of displacement

1 2

DTM report, August and October2015 DTM report, August and October2015

3


1E: ORIGIN OF THE DISPLACED POPULATION The majority of IDPs (74.8%) are from Borno state, while 5.5% comes from Adamawa sates and 3.8% from Yobe. Current Location ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BENUE

GOMBE

KADUNA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

TARABA

80.53%

1.32%

0.00%

0.00%

1.15%

5.83%

0.36%

0.84%

0.00%

0.43%

7.05%

1.87%

BAUCHI

0.00%

17.52%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.05%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

BORNO

18.45%

32.84%

0.00%

100.00%

81.28%

50.07%

4.99%

72.20%

13.85%

2.61%

13.29%

57.84%

23.85%

GOMBE

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

PLATEAU

0.00%

26.57%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.69%

0.00%

1.07%

85.74%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

TARABA

1.02%

8.08%

37.89%

0.00%

2.15%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

2.13%

4.62%

79.38%

0.00%

0.00%

YOBE

0.00%

11.43%

0.00%

0.30%

0.00%

43.29%

1.35%

26.96%

0.00%

0.54%

0.28%

40.30%

2.58%

ZAMFARA

0.00%

0.04%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.37%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

73.56%

KATSINA

0.00%

0.13%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

NASARAWA

0.00%

1.87%

0.14%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

0.07%

0.00%

75.96%

5.42%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

KADUNA

0.00%

0.18%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

90.12%

0.00%

6.99%

0.03%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

BENUE

0.00%

0.00%

61.97%

0.00%

12.82%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

NIGER

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

State of Origin

ADAMAWA

BORNO

FCT

KANO

Table 2: IDP Population by state of origin and current location (State);

YOBE

ZAMFARA 0.00%

In all the states affected by communal clashes (Benue, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba and Zamfara), the majority of IDPs are from the same states. In Kano, IDPs are mainly coming from Borno. In Adamawa, 80% of IDPs also come from the same state. In Abuja, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe and Yobe, most IDPs are from Borno state. 1F: TYPE OF LOCATION - RESIDENCE OF IDPS Camp 8%

The vast majority of IDPs identified during this round of assessment (92%) are living in host communities while 8% live in camps or camp-like sites.

Host Community 92%

Chart 5: IDP population by type of location In Adamawa, 6.5% of the IDP population live in camps while this percentage is of 8.2% in Borno State. Host Community ZAMFARA YOBE

100.00%

0.00%

KADUNA GOMBE

BENUE BAUCHI ADAMAWA

89.28%

10.72%

91.94%

8.06%

98.93%

1.07%

94.42%

5.58%

100.00%

0.00% 47.17% 52.83%

FCT BORNO

89.32%

10.68%

PLATEAU KANO

93.78%

6.22%

TARABA NASARAWA

Camp

8.21% 0.51% 2.12% 6.50%

91.79% 99.49% 97.88% 93.50% 4


1D: RETURNEES According the results of the return assessments, a total of 332,333 IDPs returned to northern Adamawa (Mubi North, Mubi South, Michika, Maiha, Hong and Gombi). Most returnees were originally displaced in Adamawa (32.14%), Kano (13.16%), Nasarawa (11.73%), Gombe (7.64%), while 6% of returnees came from Cameroun.

35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

Graph 6: Returnees-State of origin

2 REGISTRATION For this round of assessment, the DTM teams registered 12,527 IDPs living in host communities in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno and Gombe states3. 2A: LIVELIHOOD According to the data collected during the registration exercise, 55% of the IDP households who were interviewed had a regular source of income before displacement. After displacement, this percentage drop to 11 % and 49% declared not to have any source of income. The majority of IDPs (57%) declared that agriculture was their main source of income, followed by business (28%). 83% of IDP households declared that food was their priority source of income.

Business 38%

Construction 1%

Husbandry 1% Paid employment 5%

Craftsman 4%

Other 1% N/A 1% Agriculture 49%

Graph 7: IDP source of livelihood before displacement

3

IDP list available upon request

5


2B: NEEDS AND ASSISTANCE The registration data show that 61 % of the IDP households declared that food was their primary need while 8% put shelter as their first need and 5% Non Food Items (NFIs). In term of assistance, 63% of the registered households declared that they have received food while only 18% declared that they have received NFIs and 3% shelter. 24% of IDP households declared that most of the food items they consume come from humanitarian assistance while 26% declared that half of the food items they consume comes from humanitarian assistance. NFI 5%

Food 60%

Psychosocial support 1% Health 1% Education 2%

Shelter 8%

Security Transport 7% 2% Water/Sanit ation Employment None 1% 3% 2%

8%

Chart 8 : IDP needs

Food 48%

Shelter 2%

NFI 26%

Health 0%

Education 0% None Transport 23% 0%

Chart 9 : IDP type of assistance received

2C: INTENTIONS OF RETURN

The vast majority of IDP household (94%) expressed the desire to return to their places of origin while 6% have no intention to do so. For the IDPs who want to return home, security is the main condition to return (80%) while 17% put the improvement of the economic situation in their area of origin as the main factor for their return.

100% 80% 60%

Regarding the IDPs who have no intention to return home, 44% want to stay in their place of displacement while 40% want to go to other host families.

40% 20% 0% Yes

No

3 SITES ASSESSMENT 3.1.A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS IN SITES The number of IDP sites assessed by the DTM teams went from 76 to 78. These sites include the camps and camp-like sites identified in the 11 states where the assessments took place and include both formal and informal settlements. The number of individuals residing in the sites is 162,667 IDPs (26,753 household) which represents 7.6% of the IDP population State

Formal

Informal

Total

ADAMAWA

5

5

10

BAUCHI

1

1

BENUE

1

1

9

23

FCT

4

4

KADUNA

5

5

KANO

1

1

NASARAWA

6

6

BORNO

14

6


PLATEAU

11

11

TARABA

12

12

YOBE

1

3

4

Total

20

58

78

Table 3: Number of sites-States The sites assessed during this exercise have been classified in three categories:   

Camp: open-air settlements, usually made-up of tents, where IDPs find accommodation; Collective center: pre-existing buildings and structures used for collective and communal settlements of the displaced population; Transitional center: centers which provide short term/temporary accommodation for the displaced population.

Out of 78 sites, 57 categorized as collective settlements (mainly schools), while 19 sites are considered to be camps and 2 sites were classified as transitional center. 3.1.B: SECTOR ANALYSIS

SHELTER

Host family house, 10

Individual house, 3

Tents, 4 School, 25

The most common types of shelter identified during the site assessments are schools (25 sites) and Government building (17 sites). The other types of shelter include self -made tent (10 sites) and community centers (6 sites). In the majority of sites (42), more than 75% of the IDP population live indoors while in 3 sites, more than 75% of the population live in makeshift shelters.

Health facility, 2 Bunk houses, 1

In 32 sites, IDPs do not have access to electricity while in 26 sites less than 25% of the IDP population have access to safe cooking facilities. In 24 sites no cooking facilities are available. The majority of the sites (46) do not have private living areas.

Communit y center, 6 Self‐made tents, 10

Government building, 17

In most sites (45), sites residents reported blankets as the most needed type of NFI while in 23 sites mosquito nets are the second most needed type of NFI.

Chart 11 : Type of Shelter

WASH In the majority of sites (52) the main water source is located on-site within a 10 minute walk, in 5 sites the main water source is located on site, but requires more than a 10 minute walk. In 11 sites, the main water source is located off-site within a 10 minute walk, in 10 sites the water source is located off site and require more than 10 minute walk. In 39 sites, more than 50% of water sources are functional, while in 25 sites less than 50% of water sources are functional. In 47 sites, the toilets are reported to be in no so good conditions while in 19 sites they are reported to be in good conditions. In 10 sites, toilets are not usable. In most sites (43) there are no separate toilets for male and female. Most sites (32) do not have a waste disposal system. In addition, 63 sites do not have a good drainage system and 52 sites show signs of open defecation.

7


12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Good (Hygienic) No answer Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)

Graph 8: Conditions of most toilets in sites.

s

FOOD AND NUTRITION Households in 76 sites have access to food on site (distribution, vouchers) but the provision of food is irregular in 43 sites. In 53 sites, residents have access to a market near from the site. The most common source of food is distribution (36 sites), followed by host community donation (18 sites). In 52 sites there is no screening for malnutrition and in the vast majority of sites no supplementary feeding are available.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Everyday Irregular

Never

Once a month

Once a week

Twice a week

Graph 9 : Regularity of food distribution is sites

HEALTH 1

8 6

Cough Diarrhea

In the majority of sites (51), residents reported malaria as the most prevalent health problem, followed by fever (12 sites). In 51 sites, IDPs have reported to have access to medicine but residents in 70 sites reported to have access to health facilities.

12 Fever 51

Malaria Malnutrition

Chart 13: Most prevalent health problems in sites

8


EDUCATION In 33 sites, children do not have access to formal or informal education while in 45 sites children have access to education. In 35 sites the education facility is located on site while in 29 sites the education facilities are situated offsite. In 20 sites, less than 25% of the IDP population attend school while in 26 sites none of children attend school. In 9 sites, more than 75% of the children attend school. In 17 sites, less than 50% of children attend school.

25 20 15 10 5 0

Graph 10: Percentage of children having access to formal/informal education in sites

PROTECTION Almost all sites (59) have security available on site. In 23 camps, the security is provided by the military and in 15 sites by the camp residents. In 18 sites, residents reported frictions among site residents while in 2 sites residents reported frictions with host community. In 6 sites, residents reported cases of domestic violence while in 1 sites IDPs reported cases of sexual abuse. In addition, in 2 sites cases of early/forced marriage were reported. In 1 site, child female genital mutilation/cutting was reported while in 1 site case of forced family separations was identified. Cases of separated children were reported in 9 sites. As for the assistance received, in 31 sites residents declared that the assistance was physically inadequate for the most vulnerable while residents in 11 sites reported fighting between recipients at distribution points.

Religious Leaders 1%

Self organized 19%

Community Leaders 9%

Local Authorities 10%

Police 7%

None 24%

Military 30%

Chart 14 : Security providers in sites

9


Unknown 4%

Authorities 6%

Site Management 9%

Families/Frien ds 6%

Radio/news 17%

COMMUNICATION In most of sites (23), residents get information through community leaders while in 22 sites residents reported getting information from the mobile phone and in 13 sites from radio. At 33 sites residents require more information about safety and security while residents in 24 sites reported requiring more information about the situation in areas of their origin.

Local Leader 30%

Mobile phone 28%

Chart 15 : Means of information in sites

LIVELIHOOD In most sites (30) farming is the main occupation of the IDPs, followed by petty cash (18 sites). In the majority of sites (36) residents do not have access to income generating activities or land to cultivate (39 sites).

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Graph 11 : IDP occupation in sites

10


4 METHODOLOGY The DTM activities are being implemented according to the methodology endorsed by the Government of Nigeria and carried out by teams composed of members of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), the Nigerian Red Cross Society and IOM. Humanitarian partners on the field are also participating in the assessment on an ad hoc basis. Data are collected following the below steps:

Local Government area (LGA) level location assessment: An assessment is conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates including household and individual level estimates, the identification of wards within the LGA with displaced populations and the type of displacement locations, reason for displacement, time of arrival of IDPs, and location of origin. The assessment also captures if IDPs have originated from the LGA and records contacts of key informants and organizations assisting IDPs in the area. The information is collected via interviews with key informants, who can be representatives of the LGA administration, IDP community leaders, religious leaders, Ward leaders, and NGO or humanitarian aid workers. The results of the LGA assessments, most importantly the indication of the presence of displaced households in specified wards/villages, disaggregated by those displaced in host communities and those displaced in camp-like settings, are utilized to advise whether to continue assessments at the ward/village level.

Ward/village level location assessments: Assessments are conducted with key informants at the ward/village level. The information collected includes: estimates on the number of displaced households and individuals living in the ward, details on the location and type of residence of displaced households (host community – free or renting, camp-like settings – formal and informal), reason for displacement, areas of origin, and length of displacement. The assessment also includes information on displacement originating from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of IDPs in host communities and camp-like settings. Interviews are conducted with key informants, such as Ward leaders, representatives of the LGA administration, IDP community leaders, religious leaders, and NGO or humanitarian aid workers. The results of the warden/village assessments are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward/village level location assessments are carried out in all those wards identified as having IDP populations during the LGA assessment.

Site assessments The site assessments are undertaken in identified IDP sites (both camps and camp-like settings) as well as in host communities to capture detailed information on the key services available. Site assessment forms are utilized to record the exact location and name of a site/location, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site/location, whether registrations is available, details about the site management agency (in camps and camp-like sites) and if natural hazards put the site/location at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP population, including their place of origin, and demographic information on the number of households with a breakdown by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. The form furthermore captures details on key access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education, livelihood, communication, and protection. The information is captured through interviews with representatives of the site management agency and other key informants, including IDP representatives.

Registration: The registration exercise consists in establishing the profile of IDPs by collecting detailed information at household level. The data is captured through an individual interview with the head of household and include information on individual household members, displacement history, education, livelihood, return intention, assistance received and needs as well as on vulnerability. This exercise is conducted in camps, camp like sites and host communities. Contacts: NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction, [email protected] +234 8035925885 IOM: Stéphanie Daviot, Project Officer, [email protected] +234 9038852524 http://nigeria.iom.int/dtm

11

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) DISPLACEMENT ...

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) DISPLACEMENT ...

Suggest Documents